Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

When you have to declare you've won the debate in a pathetic attempt to duck issues...You haven't won.

Which doesn't alter which fossils are in which rocks, which you consistently get wrong.

An explanation for the obvious fossil order and undeniable correlation with depth and rock formations is requisite for any theory. Any "theory" that doesn't have one is a non-starter.Only one of the many fatal flaws that we post and you ignore.

You gave no explanation. An explanation must include describing the forces and environmental factors that affect the fossils and how they act to produce the observed pattern. The order of the fossil record is a critical requirement for any theory precisely because nobody has found any near-plausible explanation other than time, lots of it, plus change over time. Something so obvious for which there's only one known explanation (despite many attempts at others) is strong evidence for the theory that has the explanation.YECs have come up with sciency-sounding labels for their attempts at explaining. Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, differential escape. Each of them or any combination of them has been trivially refuted as a possible explanation. Most of those refutations have been posted in your threads. We see the result.

We know a lot about what a world-wide flood would do. Water was water, rock was rock, gravity was gravity.One thing no flood does is consistently sort fragile objects into an order that has nothing to do with their physical properties.If you insist we can't assess the flood based on our wide-ranging knowledge of water and rock and gravity, you've explicitly rejected scientific inquiry. Take it to a faith forum.

Thinking is never enough. Evidence is required.

Your extrapolation of what we see over 100 years or so to millenia is not justified.A genome is not a blueprint. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Same answer as the last hundred times.Mutations.Your misunderstandings notwithstanding. There is no one word, since there are multiple processes operating. Especially since the relationship between proteins and traits is not coded into the genome.PZ Myers wrote :

quote:

---

Analogies have a troubling effect on developmental biology because the fundamental processes are so different from what we experience in day-to-day life that they are always flawed and misleading. My main message is going to be that while they may help us grasp what's going on, we have to also recognize where the analogies fail (like, everywhere!) and be mentally prepared to leap elsewhere.

---

There will never be a step by step explanation, the data isn't available. But we have enough data by far to conclude the outline of the process.Of course you can provide a step by step explanation of your scenario. Looking forward to it.

Repeating unsupported assertions over and over is not identifying barriers. Claiming some process exists or does not exist based only on your imagination is not identifying barriers.You need evidence. Measurements and observations of what happens in the real world. Especially the fossil record.

Demanding a step by step explanation is hypocritical. You know none is available for our or your scenario.Science works with the evidence we have, not the evidence you think we should have

We know almost all about the changes that were necessary. We don't know in what order they occurred.Still waiting for the step by step narrative of your scenario.

If you insist. See SupplementaryTable S19 from Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. You will need Excel or the free Google Sheets or equivalent, and you have a lot of studying ahead of you before you understand it. But that is the format the data is in.Harping on similar data for your scenario is a way of pointing out your stunn hypocrisy in requiring something from us but not from you.

Yes. There's lots of things in it that are identical between humans and chimps. By far most of it. Those elements of the chimp genome are used for the same purposes as their counterparts in the human genome. So I have to say almost all of the human genome could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species.As noted above we have a lot to learn about how hands develop. But we can say most of the genes that produce a human hand are identical to the genes that produce a chimpanzee hand.

All the differences between the human and chimp genome can be ascribed to mutations. Mutation is defined as a change in the genome. If we tabulated every difference between the two genomes we could produce a chimp by making those changes in a human genome and vice versa.Those changes would be mutations..We haven't actually done this, it's beyond our current capabilities, and there's ethics issues. But the process would produce a genome identical to a chimp. It would produce a chimp.